►
Description
Docket #0811 - Ordinance restricting the use of chemical crowd control agents and kinetic impact projectiles
A
A
In
accordance
with
governor
baker's
march
12
executive
order
modifying
certain
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
law.
We
are
hosting
this
working
session
on
zoom.
This
allows
us
to
do
our
jobs,
but
also
balance
the
current
public
needs
and
concerns
the
public
may
watch
this
meeting
via
live
stream
at
www.boston.gov
city
dash
council
dash
tv.
It
will
also
be
broadcast
later
on:
xfinity
8,
rcn,
82
and
fios
964..
A
Just
do
a
quick
summary
of
the
conversation
we've
had
so
far.
Then
I'm
gonna
excuse
me,
I'm
going
to
allow
for
our
counselors
who
are
present
to
make
opening
statements,
starting
with
the
lead
sponsors
and
then
we're
going
to
go
back
into
what
I
consider
working
sessions
goal
and
get
into
the
language
of
what's
brought
before
us.
A
With
one
of
the
concerns
expressed
by
the
police
at
the
working
session
on
november
14th,
the
committee
heard
again
from
deputy
superintendent
mceldrick
rason
hall
from
the
aclu
and
jeff
bloor
from
the
national
lawyers
field.
Deputy
superintendent
mcgoldrick
shared
several
concerns
about
the
department,
most
specifically
about
the
requirement
to
give
two
warnings:
two
minutes,
apart
without
exceptions
for
defense
or
self
of
others.
He
also
noted
that
the
bpd
already
focuses
on
de-escalation
and
uses
only
uses
these
tools.
A
A
First,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
announce
the
colleagues
well
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
have
the
lead
sponsors
go
and
then
we'll
go
in
order
of
arrival.
The
lead
sponsors
again
are
counselor
ricardo,
royo
and
counselor,
andrea
campbell,
you'll,
take
it
away
and
then
I'll
have
I'll
announce
the
order
after
that
either
one
counselor
royale.
B
B
C
D
E
Well
good
morning,
madam
chair
happy
back
happy
birthday
to
y'all,
so
just
really
quick,
I'm
happy
big
shout
out
to
the
lead
sponsors,
I'm
ready
to
get
to
the
matter
at
hand
and
to
the
work
ahead,
and
I
won't
belabor
the
point.
I
think
this
is
due
time
and
let's,
let's,
let's
get
beyond
the
weeds
here
and
let's,
let's
pass
this
through.
F
Good
morning,
madam
chair,
obviously
thanks
to
the
sponsors
and
to
those
participating,
it's
good
to
see
kevin
this
morning
as
well.
Just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
trying
to
do
something.
That's
fair
and
reasonable.
It'd
be
great
to
be
able
to
do
it
in
partnership
with
the
police
department,
making
sure
that
they
have
the
tools
necessary
to
obviously
keep
themselves
safe
and
the
public
safe,
and
that
there's
fair
warning
to,
I
guess
unsuspecting
peaceful
protesters.
We
saw
a
lot
of
peaceful
protests
break
down.
F
F
Anyone
wants
to
have
a
discussion
about
the
mounted
unit,
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
but
I
think
it
should
be
part
and
possible
with
this
discussion
here
is
with
respect
to
crowd,
control
mechanisms
and
and
things
that
we're
going
to
use
to
control
the
crowd.
Horses
should
be
a
big
part
of
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
A
H
A
A
A
This
morning
yeah
we
got
it
this
morning,
okay,
good,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
working
from
from
a
draft.
I
am
happy
to
turn
it
over
to
if
there's
any
brief
comments,
suggestions
right
on
the
language
to
our
our
guests
today
and
then
I'm
going
to
have
the
lead
sponsors
kind
of
walk
us
through
it
again,
so
it
counts.
I'm
sorry,
superintendent
goldrick!
I
Morning,
thank
you
for
for
having
me
as
part
of
this
working
group.
My
concerns
essentially
remain
the
same
as
they've
been
from
the
inception.
Unfortunately,
this
weekend
has
kind
of
highlighted
my
concerns.
You
know
at
various
protests
across
the
country
we
had
four
stabbings
one
shooting
a
couple
weeks
ago
we
had
a
stabbing
on
beacon
street
in
front
of
the
state
house
during
a
protest
and
another
assault.
So
you
know
I
was
reading
an
article
this
morning
and
the
abc
report
concluded
that
shootings
have
become
somewhat
commonplace
of
protests
in
recent
months.
I
Not
just
police
officers,
but
there
are
plenty
of
protesters
that
are
just
there
to
protest
that
want
no
part
of
the
violence
and
those
are
the
people
that
I
think
come
here
with
the
best
of
intentions
exercising
their
first
amendment
rights
that
we
owe
protection
to
as
well,
and
we
do
all
protections,
even
people
doing
the
wrong
thing
to
use
the
minimum
amount
of
force
required,
and
I
think
that's
what
we
do.
We
very
rarely
resolve
to
any
kind
of
force,
and
we
extremely
rarely
result
to
use
of
the
weapons
discussed
in
this
ordinance.
I
So
so
that's
you
know.
That's
my
concern
essentially
with
this.
Is
that
we're
we're
taking
a
tool
away
that
is
not
used
that
often,
but
when
it
is
used,
is
needed,
and
sometimes
it's
needed
to
be
employed
quite
quickly.
We
do
make
every
effort
we
do
have
protocols
to
to
de-escalate.
That
is
always
part
of
what
we
do
and
it
has
been
for
as
long
as
I've
been
involved
in
this
aspect
of
policing,
and
I
think
we
do
it
well.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
just
for
folks
joining
or
understanding
this,
this
again
we're
discussing
the
the
ordinance
on
restricting
the
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
kinetic
impact
projectiles.
This
is,
but
I
want
to
be
clear.
This
is
not
an
outright
ban.
There's
they're
coming
in
it
restricts
the
use,
except
for
certain
exceptions
and
examples,
and
that
would
be
in
c
part
two.
Basically,
where
we
would
be
able
to
or
wbg
excuse
me,
boston,
police
department
would
be
able
to
do
it.
A
J
K
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair
and
good
morning
to
the
rest
of
the
council
appreciation
to
the
lead
sponsors
for
this.
I
I
think
these
are
reasonable
restrictions
on
the
use
of
chemical
agents
and
kinetic
impact
weapons
that
have
been
proven
to
cause
substantial
harm,
and
you
know
to
the
extent
that
the
department
has
concerns
about
not
being
able
to
use
it.
K
I
think
the
last
working
session
there
were
several
pleas
to
provide
language
that
could
codify
the
current
practices,
because
we're
looking
into
the
future
thinking
about
how
future
administrations
might
use
this
these
weapons.
And
so
I
think
the
regulations
that
have
been
proposed,
as
everyone
has
said,
are
not
bans
but
reasonable
restrictions
on
its
use
and
so
looking
forward
to
having
a
conversation
about
how
we
can
land
on
language
that
protects
all
the
residents
of
boston
and
those
who
come
into
the
city.
A
L
A
J
J
This
this
deals
with
some
of
the
things
that
the
police
brought
up
and
kind
of
codifying
what
the
police
say.
They
already
do
so
that
these
weapons
can't
be
used
unless
a
deputy
superintendent
authorizes
their
use
in
response
to
specific
ongoing
acts
of
violence
and
the
deputy
superintendent
has
determined
that
the
violence
or
property
destruction
can't
be
controlled
or
quelled
through
other
methods
and
that
there's
no
other
reasonable
methods
of
de-escalation.
J
J
Six
there
is,
as
everyone
knows,
I'm
sure,
there's
a
police
reform
bill
that
is
on
the
desk
of
the
governor.
That's
been
passed
by
the
legislature
and
a
lot
of
that
requires
a
reporting
of
statistics,
a
federal
and
a
state
oversight
agency
being
created
and
paragraph
six
basically
says
that
violations
of
this
ordinance
by
any
member
of
law
enforcement
will
be
reported
in
writing
to
the
city
of
boston
government
agencies,
which
have
any
oversight,
responsibilities
for
the
boston
police
department
and
to
any
state
agencies
which
have
oversight
responsibilities.
J
A
So
I
will
just
I
had
some
quick
questions
honestly
and
I
forgot
to
mention
them
in
my
introductory
remarks
for
the
lead,
sponsors,
counselor,
aurora
or
campbell.
I'm
curious.
What
was
the
effective
date
of
this
ordinance?
Was
there
any
lead
time
for
the
police
department?
If
this
were
to
pass?
For
example,
when
does
it
become
effective,
and
then
also?
A
I
just
want
to
put
out
there
that
the
two
minutes
doesn't
seem
realistic
to
me
in
terms
of
a
warning
system.
Did
you
did
you
hear
from
anybody
else?
Is
this
two
minutes
coming
from
other
ordinances?
The
practicality
like
in
two
minutes,
so
much
can
happen.
That's
between
their
warning
and
the
you
have
the
opportunity
to
do
something
to
remove
yourself.
A
I
wasn't
it
didn't
settle.
Well
with
me
the
first
time
I
heard
about
the
two
minutes
and
that's
the
original
language.
So
two
things:
when
does
this
become
effective
in
the
two-minute
warning?
It
seems
and
there's
two
two
minute
warnings
there's
the
first
morning,
two
minutes
to
disperse
so
on
and
so
forth,
clarified
by
jeff,
where
you
need
to
go
and,
and
then
the
second
morning
also
is
the
same
thing
plus
the
what
projected
kinetic
impact
missile
or
whatever
sorry
connect
impact
projectile
they
would
use.
So
that's
four
minutes
lead
time.
A
A
A
K
B
Think
the
idea
is
to
disperse
a
crowd.
You
want
to
give
them
the
ability
to
leave.
You
want
to
give
them
the
space
to
leave
I'm
open
to
hearing
what
we
think
a
appropriate
amount
of
time
is,
but
I
I
do
think
that
the
two
minutes
was
tailored
so
that
you
know
people
would
actually
have
the
ability
to
leave
the
range
of
these
weapons
because
they
they
have
a
large.
B
You
know
burst
cloud,
they
have
a
large
space
and
radius,
and
so
it
would
be
good
for
folks
to
actually
have
the
ability
to
leave
as
far
as
just
kind
of
officers
preemptively
giving
out
warnings.
I
think
this
ordinance
in
itself
makes
it
clear
that
they
have
to
actually
be
seeing
unlawful
behavior
specifically
in
order
to
do
this.
It's
not
just
a
matter
of
you
know,
there's
a
crowd
here
and
we
would
prefer
the
crowd
not
be
here
anymore,
so
we're
going
to
tear
gas
them
or
we're
going
to
rubber
bullet
them.
B
It's
it's
more
so
about
there's
an
ongoing
act
of
violence.
There's
something
that's
happening
right,
this
second,
that
we
know
we
want
to
do
this,
and
so
we're
going
to
issue
this
warning.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
all-inclusive
answer
for
the
three
things-
and
I
don't
know
if
councillor
campbell
wants
to
add
anything
to
that.
B
But
in
terms
of
those
three
things
I
can
tell
that
the
time
that
was
settled
upon
was
to
give
folks
the
ability
and
time
to
leave
an
area
the
the
ordinance
itself
kind
of
deals
with
when
it's
appropriate
to
give
that
time.
I
I
we
did
not
speak
about
lead
in
time
on
this,
so
I
think
I'm
we're
happy
to
have
a
conversation
about
how
long
it
takes
to
really
implement
that
and
train
that.
I
will
say,
though,
that
this
is
according
to
superintendent.
B
This
is
sort
of
what
they
already
do,
allegedly
right.
This
is
the
stuff
that
they're
already
doing
so.
I
think
that
the
lead
in
time
would
not
need
to
be
necessarily
that
long.
This
is
what
they're
already
being
trained
to
do
and
what
they're
already
doing,
and
so
with
that
out
I'll
hand
it
over,
I
see
counselor
campbell
has
turned
her
camera
on.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
C
C
I
think
we
remain
open.
I
think
I
I
I
can't
speak
for,
obviously
the
lawyers
guild
or
aclu
and
what
their
position
might
be
with
respect
to
this,
but
I
do
remember,
of
course,
specifically
saying
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
conversation
in
the
first
hearing
that
if
bpd
had
thoughts
and
concerns
around
the
timing
piece,
we
were
absolutely
open
to
making
some
changes
there.
We
were
going
with
what
we
thought
was
reasonable
under
the
circumstances.
A
Thank
you.
I
before
I
jeff
has
raised
his
hand
and
I'm
I
must.
I
still
wanted
to
also
go
through
all
my
colleagues
as
well,
but
I
wanted
to
read
the
letter
from
council
president
janie
into
the
record.
Dear
chairwoman
edwards,
I
regretfully
cannot
attend
today's
working
session
on
docket
zero,
eight
one
one
due
to
illness.
I
applaud
and
stand
in
support
of
the
makers,
council,
royal
and
campbell
for
their
leadership
on
this
critical
issue.
A
We
must
be
codifying
clear
and
transparent
protocols
on
the
use
of
chemical
crowd,
control
agents
and
other
forms
of
projectiles
to
ensure
that
we
are
striking
the
fight,
a
right
balance
between
protecting
residents.
First,
amendment
rights
during
law
enforcement,
doing
lawful
protests
while
ensuring
overall
public
safety.
I
look
forward
to
reviewing
today's
recording
and
committee
report
and
finally,
I'm
eager
to
work
with
the
committee
on
the
recommended
next
steps.
Please
read
this
letter
into
the
into
the
record:
sincerely
counselor
janie
city
council
president.
Thank
you.
J
So,
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
time
the
national
lawyers
guild
and
myself
personally
have
been
providing
legal
observers
for
demonstrations
in
boston
and
in
the
whole
of
eastern
massachusetts
for
about
the
last
30
years,
and
these
kinds
of
demonstrations
rarely
get
out
of
hand.
As
superintendent
and
mcgoldrick
has
pointed
out,
there
is
sufficient
time
for
the
police
to
react
because
they
do
have
other
weapons
at
their
command
that
they
can
use.
J
So
there's
plenty
of
time
for
them
to
give
these
warnings
and
to
have
people
have
an
opportunity
to
disperse
so
that
these
weapons
are
not
used
indiscriminately
on
the
crowd.
So
I
I
think,
based
upon
our
30
years
of
experience
that
we've
gathered
from
our
legal
observers
that
this
this
is
sufficient
to
give
the
crowd.
These
two
warnings.
It's
sufficient
time
for
the
police
to
be
able
to
react.
Thank
you.
I
If
I
could
just
address
some
issues
that
have
come
up
so
you
know,
attorney
mentions
that
pepper
spray
on
an
individual
would
be
allowed.
It
would
not
be
under
this
ordinance,
pepper
spray
on
an
individual
present
at
a
crowd
of
more
than
10
people
is
banned
unless
it's
approved
by
a
deputy
superintendent
or
hire
who's
observing
specific
acts.
So
that
I
mean
that's,
that's
just
what
the
ordinance
says.
That's
unless
I'm
missing
something
that
seems
to
be
a
clear
misstatement
of
this
ordinance.
I.
B
K
I
I
A
To
all
my
colleagues
again
who
may
have
just
joined
the
the
working
session
draft
was
sent
out
to
you
in
advance.
It
should
be
in
your
inbox.
So
if
you
wanted
to
follow
along
where
the
discourse
is
specifically
we're
discussing
when
the
two-minute
morning
would
arrive
would
apply
and
in
the
image
individual
settings.
So
that's
what
we're
discussing
just
to
give
some
context.
I
And
you
know,
while
everyone's
kind
of
reviewing
to
see
if
my
understanding
of
the
language
is
consistent
with
theirs,
I
would
just
cite
a
couple
of
other
things.
You
know
attorney
sure's
description
of
this
new
language
as
somewhat
innocuous
housekeeping
type
languages
is
not
not
really
accurate.
According
to
to
my
perception
of
it,
you
know,
and
in
section
two
a
one.
I
The
additional
language
invites
never-ending,
second-guessing
on
on
what
the
police
did
with
language
such
as
cannot
be
controlled
or
called
through
any
other
means.
Any
other
means
any
conceivable
means
that
someone
could
come
up
with
whether
or
not
we
actually
had
it
available
or
not,
because
what
would
happen
is
if
we
didn't
have
it
available,
then.
Obviously
the
complaint
would
be
that
we
should
have
had
it
available.
It's,
and
I
I
know
it
does
go
on
to
say,
has
the
term
that
no
other
reasonable
means
of
de-escalation,
but
that's
a
separate
sentence.
I
So
it's
it's.
It's
a
separate
section
of
that
sentence,
so
you
know
in
de-escalation.
You
know,
since
we're
discussing
it
really
isn't
covered
that
much
in
this
ordinance,
but
where
it
is
covered
pretty
extensively
is
in
the
new
police
reform
bill
that
attorney
fair
mentioned.
That
actually
has
a
pretty
extensive
de-escalation
section
to
it.
A
very
extensive
reporting
section
anytime.
Any
of
these
devices
are
used.
So
there
is
an
extraordinary
amount
of
oversight
on
this,
which
kind
of
causes
me
to
to
look
at
this
as
superfluous.
I
So
it
changes
from
jurisdiction
to
jurisdiction
where
we
would
have
to
provide
officers
assisting
us
with
our
law
in
the
city,
and
if
we
go
to
help
a
neighboring
city
or
town,
they
would
have
to
provide
us
with
their
law.
It
really
seems
like
the
interoperability
that
we
rely
on
and
and
really
would
would
not
be
able
to
do
it
as
safely
without
that
interoperability
would
be
at
risk.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
understand.
Jeff
you've
raised
your
hand,
but
but
my
colleagues
have
also
questions
and
so
I'd
like
for
folks,
and
I
do
appreciate
superintendent
your
your
perspective.
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
really
exciting
to
actually
be
talking
about
the
language
and
how
you
think
it's
going
to
be
impacting
day-to-day
practical
implementation.
C
C
If
it
isn't
that,
then
of
course
our
welcome,
as
we
said
from
the
very
beginning
to
any
suggested
changes
to
the
language
that
we
could
incorporate
to
make
sure
it's
balanced.
It's
fair
and
approach
and,
of
course,
includes
the
police
department
and
lieutenant
in
the
lieutenant
suggestions.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
E
E
How
are
we
interpreting
all
does
this
include
people
who
do
not
speak
english
and
I'm
also
curious,
while
we're
talking
about
being
able
to
communicate
with
folks
lately,
my
daughter
has
been
talking
to
me
a
lot
about
the
american
sign
language
and
I'm
just
curious
about
communication
like
how
we
thinking
about
the
communication
of
this
rollout
and
ensuring
that
people
fully
understand
what
is
happening
around
them
and
what
the
communication
is.
I
just
would
like
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
A
Excellent
questions
with
result.
This
is
a
practical
implementation
question.
I
think
the
makers
first
should
maybe
consider
how
they
envisioned
multilingual
warnings
or
warnings
to
folks
who
do
not,
who
are
who
are
deaf
or
hard
of
hearing
in
that
particular
moment,
and
then
I
didn't
know,
and
then
I
think
I
can
turn
it
over
to
practical
implementation
questions
to
the
boston
police
department
again
about
the
warning
system
today.
A
C
C
They
already
do
so
I
do
think
the
question
you
raised
chair
around
what,
when
they
give
notifications
to
large
crowds,
what
that
currently
looks
like
would
be
helpful
here,
happy
to
to
make
suggested
changes
to
sort
of
get
at
that,
but
if,
if
the
police
department
already
has
that
in
their
procedures
or
practice
or
policy
already,
we
could
reference
that
or
get
creative
as
to
how
we
how
we
do
that.
But
I
think
it's
an
excellent
point.
I
Well,
I
think
this
raises
an
important
issue
of
liability
for
the
city,
in
addition
to
the
fairness
of
of
giving
everyone
the
same
amount
of
warning.
It's
really
not
within
the
department's
capability
to
understand
exactly
who
was
in
these
crowds
and
exactly
what
additional
warnings
would
be
helpful
and
would
be
necessary,
but
we
would
be
liable
for
anyone
that
can
make
a
claim
that
they
weren't
given
adequate
warning.
So
I
mean
certainly
we
could
pre-record
some
dispersal
orders.
I
However,
we'd
have
to
understand
where
we'd
be
telling
them
to
disperse
from,
because
we're
required
to
give
them
a
safe
means
of
egress.
So
that's
a
complicating
factor
as
far
as
the
sign
language,
I
don't
know
how
we
would
broadcast
that
out,
to
the
extent
that
we
could
broadcast
audible
messages.
Obviously
that's
that's
a
challenge.
I
However,
under
state
law
for
dispersion
crowds,
you
can
give
warnings
for
a
much
lower
standard
without
violence
without
property
damage.
It's
just
a
crowd
that
is,
is
unruly
and
declared
an
unlawful
assembly,
for
you
know
much
lower
standards
of
conduct,
so
so
this
is
really
somewhat
in
conflict
with
chapter
269,
one
of
mass
general
laws
as
far
as
the
as
far
as
what
the
standards
for
a
for
a
dispersal
order
would
be.
I
So
what
risk
I
see
that
presenting
is
that
we
give
a
dispersal
order
not
with
the
intent
of
using
any
of
these
crowd
control
devices,
and
then
we
give
another
order
at
some
point
later
on,
within
with
the
intent
of
using
these
devices
in
compliance
with
this
ordinance,
it
gets.
It
gets
to
be
not
just
a
logistical
challenge
of
languages
and
and
people
who
need
certain
accommodations
to
convey
the
information
but
also
which,
which
warning
are
we
giving?
What
version
of
it
is
going
to
apply?
I
How
do
we
document
and
how
do
we
ensure
that
the
people
in
the
crowd
understand
this
is
a
dispersal
order?
We
don't
necessarily
intend
to
use
any
particular
force,
but
you
are
subject
to
arrest
versus.
This
is
a
dispersal
order,
you're
still
subject
to
arrest,
oh
and
by
the
way,
we're
going
to
use
these
devices
that
were
required
to
give
the
separate
the
separate
order
and
announcement
for
so
it's
you
know
again.
I
J
One
is
the
state
police
already
have
as
part
of
their
guidelines
and
policies
that
they
are
required
to
obey
and
act
under
the
ordinances
of
the
local
jurisdiction
in
which
they
are
operating.
That's
already
part
of
the
state
police
guidelines.
That's
certainly
true
on
any
other
mutual
aid.
When
the
police
come
in
from
weymouth
or
braintree,
or
cambridge
or
somerville
into
the
city
of
boston,
they
are
under
the
command
and
control
of
the
boston
police.
J
The
job
of
the
court
is
to
look
at
all
of
the
circumstances
and
all
of
the
evidence
and
see
within
the
spirit
and
intent
and
meaning
of
a
particular
ordinance,
whether
the
police
have
acted
reasonably
and
within
the
confines
of
that
law.
They're
not
going
to
the
courts
are
not
going
to
impose
every
single
restriction
on
them.
That
is
not
mentioned
in
the
ordinance
and,
and
that
will
always
be
true
and
that's
always
been
true
of
any
law
that
has
been
passed
in
massachusetts.
J
As
for
the
use
of
pepper
spray
again,
the
whole
point
of
this
ordinance
is
to
prevent
the
use
of
these
weapons
on
a
crowd
of
people
gatherings
involving
more
than
10
persons.
So
it
is
not
restricting
the
use
on
an
individual
who
is
committing
a
crime
in
front
of
an
officer,
a
supervisor
who
sees
it
or
any
other
officer
who
sees
it
if
the
weapon
is
going
to
be
used
only
on
that
particular
individual.
J
J
There's
no
reason
if
the
department
of
correction
dealing
with
a
population
of
incarcerated
people
can
operate
safely
within
those
restrictions,
there's
no
reason
why
the
boston
police
cannot
operate
safely
and
effectively
within
these
restrictions,
when
there
are
citizens
out
on
the
streets
exercising
their
first
amendment
rights.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
address
the
question
as
to
how
long
and
whether
two
minutes
is
long
enough.
I
have
to
assume
that
every
situation
is
different
and
would
arguably
have
to
sort
of
defer
it
to
those
that
have
the
training
and
experience
around
such,
and
I
would
also
assume
that
in
those
situations
there
would
be
some
type
of
command
post
or
someone.
F
That's
sort
of
high
level
with
training
and
experience
would
be
making
the
decision
in
very
much
like
a
house
fire
there's
certain
fires
that
you
know
need
sort
of
immediate
attention.
There's
others
that
you
can
do
a
search
and
rescue
there's
others
that
you
can
allow
to
smolder,
etc.
So
I
would
really
defer
to
those
that
have
experience
in
the
field
as
to
whether
whether
it's
two
minutes,
whether
it's
three
minutes,
is
a
four
minutes.
F
Those
cities
are
an
absolute
disaster
right
now
and,
and
we
should
be
learning
from
what
other
cities
across
the
country
are
doing
or
not
doing,
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
the
best
we
can
and
enhancing
our
community
policing
model
and
we're
keeping
folks,
safe
and
and
we're
keeping
the
peace.
I'd
also
like
to
compliment
superintendent,
kevin
goldick,
obviously
he's
an
attorney
and
he's
given
a
lot
of
thought
to
this.
F
This
is
obviously
a
healthy
debate
and
back
and
forth
he's
he's
looking,
obviously
the
public
safety
angle,
the
public
health
angle,
the
constitutional
law
angle,
the
general
liability
angle,
so
in
each
one
of
the
clauses
and
sentences
that
has
meaning
he's,
obviously
given
a
lot
of
thought
to
it.
So
I
have
a
lot
of
appreciation.
F
The
expression
I'd
rather
be
looking
at
it
than
looking
for
it
in
some
instances,
an
effort
to
keep
the
peace
and
to
keep
people
and
property
safe
in
boston,
see
it's
a
tough
call,
but
we
obviously
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
acting
within
reason
that
we're
not
acting
too
soon.
At
the
same
time,
it
would
be
disastrous
if
we
acted
too
late
so
striking
that
balance
in
on
a
case-by-case
basis
is
probably
most
appropriate,
but
it
would
have
to
be
led
and
driven
by
someone
in
leadership.
A
I
So
you
know
for
the
answer,
a
couple
of
questions
from
from
council
clarity.
That's
what
that's
exactly
what
we
do.
We
have
a
command
post,
no
one!
No
one's
using
crowd,
control
techniques
without
approval
from
the
incident
commander
or
or
subordinate
the
operations
section
chief
is
is
one
of
the
term
one
of
the
terms
of
the
people
that
will
be
able
to
to
implement
that
right.
Now,
you
know.
Without
the
disorders
in
place,
we
can,
as
attorney
fair
described.
I
I
My
interpretation
of
this
ordinance,
though
you
know
it,
says
right
here-
a
chemical
control
agent
against
any
person
or
persons
engaged
in
a
protest
demonstration
or
other
gathering
that
tells
me
where
it
singles
out
person
or
persons.
You
cannot
use
it
on
one
person.
If
he's
part
of
the
crowd
I
mean,
if
someone
completely
unrelated
to
the
crowd
you
know
is,
is
robbing
a
a
nearby
gas
station.
Of
course
yeah.
I
You
can
use
pepper
spray
if
he's
running
with
with
some
weapon
that
it's
appropriate
to
use
pepper
spray
for,
but
if
he's
a
member
of
the
crowd
and
it's
an
individual
doing
something
unlawful,
you
cannot
address
him
with
a
personally
issued
pepper
spray.
Under
this
ordinance,
it's
it
seems
clear
to
me
chemical
control,
agent,
against
any
person
or
persons
in
a
crowd,
a
demonstration
of
more
than
ten.
I
So
so
that
I
mean,
I
think
those
two
things
are
important
like
it's
the
timing
issue,
the
fact
that
there's
no
individual
initiative
to
to
address
crowd
control
concerns
as
they
emerge,
which
currently
exists
now
and-
and
we
don't
have-
we
don't-
have
offices
out
there
roaming
around
in
and
onesies
and
two
diseases.
If
we
have,
if
we
have
a
serious
crowd,
control
issue,
the
sergeants,
there's
lieutenants,
there's
captains,
there's
people
with
a
lot
of
experience
that
are
able
to
implement
independent
judgment.
I
I
So
I
I
do
see
this
as
extremely
restrictive.
I
know
people
try
to
downplay
the
ordinance
by
saying
it's
a
restriction,
not
a
ban,
but
it's
essentially
a
ban
with
a
limited
exception.
So
I
mean
it
all
depends
on
how
you
want
to
look
at
it,
but
that
you
know
it
would
take
away
the
individual
assessment
of
what's
going
on
and
remove
it
to
essentially
people
with
less
experience
and
no
proximity
to
the
events
which
which
is
problematic
right
now.
I
We
have
methodologies
that
have
worked
that
have
you
know,
I
think,
if
you
look
at
how
boston
handled
some
of
these
situations
versus
other
cities-
and
you
know
we
did
have
one
night
with
a
significant
damage
and
looting
and
violence-
and
you
know
we
have
a
number
of
officers
who
are
still
out
injured
from
that
and
that's
with
these
devices
available.
If
we
didn't
have
these
devices
available,
and
I
suspect
we
would
have
seen
a
lot
more
property
damage
a
lot
more
looting
and
certainly
a
lot
more
police
officers
injured.
I
But
also
a
lot
of
people
who
were
just
there
as
part
of
the
protest,
a
lot
of
people
who
were
just
there
to
see
what
was
going
on
would
have
been
victimized
by
a
crowd
that
was,
you
know,
doing
everything,
including
firing
about
a
dozen
rounds
from
a
handgun
at
a
group
of
police
officers
towards
the
end
of
the
night.
So
you
know
again,
my
concern
is
timely,
effective
use
of
devices
that
have
been
used
judiciously
and
and
not
not
misused
in
recent
memory,
and
you
know
the
first
time
we've
used
the
sponge
around
weapons.
I
In
my
time
here,
the
first
time
we've
used
cs
gas
in
my
time
here.
Other
protests-
we've
used
short
bursts
of
pepper
spray
from
the
personally
carried
pepper
spray
that
the
officers
have
and
that's
been
the
extent
of
it.
So
I
I
kind
of
I
see
this
as
a
pretty
severe
restriction
that
could
have
serious
implications
without
really
I'm
not
seeing
the
impetus
for
this,
especially
when
there's
a
state
law.
That's
going
to
provide
some
oversight
to
this
issue
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
K
Okay,
thank
you
a
couple
things
in
regards
to
the
concerns
about
the
restrictive
nature
of
this.
I
think
the
whole
point
of
this
is
to
to
be
a
working
group.
Let's
work
through
the
language,
let's
find
the
reasonable
alternatives
and
put
language
forward
so
that
the
council
has
something
to
work
with.
Instead
of
just
saying
it's
a
restriction,
it's
a
ban!
K
Well,
let's
make
it
workable,
and
I
again,
I
think
those
were
the
pleas
from
the
counselors
last
time
and
we're
here
having
the
same
conversation
in
regards
to
the
pending
state
legislation,
it
is
not
enacted
into
law.
It
is
on
back
in
the
governor
has
sent
it
back
with
amendments,
but
specifically
in
regards
to
tear
gas
or
any
other
chemical
weapon.
K
Unless
one
de-escalation
tactics
have
been
attempted
and
failed
and
are
not
feasible,
based
on
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
and
two,
the
measure
used
are
necessary
to
prevent
imminent
harm
and
the
foreseeable
harm
inflicted
by
the
tear
gas
or
chemical
weapons.
And
so
that's
what's
on
the
table
that
doesn't
go
as
far
as
what's.
K
A
J
Interpretation
of
the
statute.
I
think
the
courts
would
look
at
this
as
a
statute
that
is
preventing
the
use
of
these
weapons
against
crowds
of
people.
That's
the
entire
intent
of
it.
That's
what
the
language
talks
about,
if,
in
the
middle
of
a
crowd,
someone
is
engaged
in
a
stabbing
or
is
engaged
in
looting.
J
That
is
not
part
of
the
demonstration
or
protest
that
is
not
exercising
any
sort
of
first
amendment
rights
and
the
police
always
have
the
opportunity
to
go
in
and
arrest
people
who
are
engaging
in
a
crime
immediately
in
front
of
them
and
there's
nothing
in
this
ordinance.
That
would
prevent
that
thanks.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
now,
and
I
would
just
say
that
the
hearing
on
this
was
in
august,
and
here
we
are
in
december,
and
I
don't
believe
that
bpd
has
offered
any
language
or
amendments
to
this.
As
of
yet,
and
so
you
know
I
I
do
get
sort
of
the
frustration
that
I
have
heard
from
some
of
the
advocates.
B
As
to
you
know,
we
did
implore
them
in
the
last
working
session
to
bring
forward
some
language,
and
here
we
are,
and
we
still
don't
have
it
and
I
think,
just
to
address
one
of
the
major
concerns.
I
think
I've
now
heard
from
counselor
flaherty
counselor.
Madam
chair
is
the
two
minutes
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
struck
with
in
doing
this
research
tonight
and
I'm
gonna
punch
it
to
jeff,
who,
I
think,
has
more
of
a
knowledge
base
on
this.
B
But
my
understanding
is
in
the
state
of
massachusetts
when
there
is
a
prison
riot
in
order
to
use
these
these
tools,
the
the
tear
gas
or
kinetic
impact
projectiles.
They
actually
have
to
go
through
every
person
who
is
in
that
block
in
that
wings.
Medical
records
prior
to
authorizing
that
and
is
that
correct,
jeff.
J
In
the
immediate
cell
block
in
the
immediate
adjacent
cells
and
the
the
weapons
are
not
supposed
to
be
used
unless
directed
by
the
head
of
the
correctional
facility,
the
the
warden
and
so
forth,
and
not
by
individual
officers,
not
by
the
the
immediate
supervisor,
but
by
the
director
of
the
prison
facility.
Thank.
B
B
I
think
that
process
would
likely
take
longer,
and
if
we're
talking
about
residents
in
our
community
getting
these
kinds
of
protections,
I
don't
think
it's
wildly
inaccurate
to
give
them
four
minutes
to
exit
an
area,
and
you
know
I
I
will
just
say
boston-
does
have
a
history
of
this
going
in
the
worst
possible
case
scenario,
we
did
lose
a
life
to
a
kinetic
impact
projectile
with
a
bullet
to
the
face,
because
again,
these
are
not
a
rubber
bullet.
Specifically,
these
are
not.
B
You
know
controllable
weapons
in
the
sense
that
they're
they're
focused
on
one
individual.
They
are
crowd
control
and
they
affect
crowds,
and
so
you
know
to
the
time
requirement.
I
would
say
that
the
fact
that
we
as
a
state
massachusetts-
and
we
see
the
issues
right
now
with
just
the
bill
in
front
of
us-
have
already
codified
language
that
allows
for
within
our
correctional
facilities,
to
take
the
time
to
seek
every
person's
medical
records
and
to
cross-reference
those
medical
records
and
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
that.
B
I
do
think
that
the
two
minutes
followed
by
another
two
minutes
is,
is
an
acceptable
amount
of
time,
but
I'm
happy
to
hear
any
kind
of
feedback
on
why
that
somehow
would
not
be
an
acceptable
amount
of
time.
But
I
think
that
we've,
I
think
in
terms
of
what
the
precedent
is
for
what
we
do
in
our
state
prisons
in
our
city
prisons,
in
our
jails.
I
think
that
that
that
makes
sense,
and
so
for
that
one
point
I
wanted
to
just
touch
on
you
know
when
that
was
calculated.
B
Part
of
the
calculation,
at
least
for
me
as
a
lead
sponsor,
was
the
fact
that
that
process
within
our
our
prison
system
can't
possibly
take
shorter
than
four
minutes
to
run
through
everybody's
medical
records
and
make
these
decisions,
and
yet
somehow
they've
been
able
to
operate
with
these
restrictions.
They've
been
able
to
do
this,
and
I
don't
see
why
our
bpd
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
the
same
on
the
streets
of
boston.
A
I
Thank
you
yeah,
so
I
mean
it's
it's
the
fact
that
we
won't
have
an
opportunity
to
timely,
address
an
emerging
problem
and
now
we're
playing
catch-up.
So
it's
not
it's
not
whether
is
three
minutes.
The
right
number
is
five
minutes
the
right
number
that
that's
not
the
issue.
The
issue
is
once
things
get
out
of
control,
and
we
cannot
stop
that.
I
I
mean
I,
I
respect
attorney
fair's
experience
and
his
version
is
his
interpretation
of
what
the
statute
says
my
interpretation
and
the
way
that
if
this
ordinance
is
passed,
the
way
that
I
would
explain
it
to
the
officers
under
my
command
is
that
it
applies
to
an
individual
person.
It
doesn't
matter
if
someone
pulls
out
a
knife
or
a
club
or
whatever.
If
he's
in
a
crowd.
I
I
We'd
have
no
way
of
understanding
what
the
medical
conditions
of
each
and
every
person
are
but
we'd
be
held
to
that
standard,
because
I'm
sure
someone,
someone
on
the
plaintiff's
side
would
say
well.
The
police
officer
should
have
known
that
there
are
people
who
could
have
compromised
breathing
issues
or
what
have
you.
B
Manchester
brief,
just
a
brief
thing,
just
to
clarify
just
to
clarify
that
this,
this
ordinance
doesn't
actually
make
any
requirements
for
bpd
to
know
or
assess
or
make
any
determinations
on
anybody's
medical
records
whatsoever.
This
is
not
an
ordinance.
The
only
reason
that
I
brought
that
up
is
that
the
amount
of
time
that
it
would
take
for
a
prison
to
do
that,
I
think
we
could
argue,
would
be
less
than
the
four
minutes
that
we're
asking
here
for
warnings
for
people
who
disperse
that's.
L
L
What
what
I,
what
I
have
seen
is
the
majority
of
protesters
are
peaceful.
However,
you
know
during
these
difficult
times
when,
when
it
takes
when
it
just
takes
one
person
to
cause
violence,
that's
the
that's.
The
question
I
have
is
what
what
is
the
time
frame
from
doing
nothing
and
in
necessary
force?
L
I
I
just
want
to.
I
just
want
to
ask
the
deputy
superintendent
about
that
question,
and
I
also
know
that
the
deputy
superintendent
has
studied
this
issue
as
a
boston
police
officer.
I
also
know
he's
he's
an
attorney
and
you
know,
and
he's
had
education
and
training
in
the
u.s
military,
very
professional
education,
academic
environment.
So
I
just
want
to
ask
the
deputy
superintendent
if
he
shares
those
same
concerns
that
that
I
do.
I
Thank
you,
council.
Yes,
I
mean
those
are
exactly
my
concerns.
I
mean
that
the
reality
is
that
when,
especially
in
the
crowd
environment
and
more
particularly
one
is
when
there
are
two
crowds
that
oppose
each
other,
I
mean
when
there's
a
crowd,
that's
attacking
the
police,
I
mean
we.
We
can
find
a
way
to
to
protect
ourselves
and
give
warnings,
as
we
always
do
and
then
react,
but
when
there's
a
crowd,
that's
attacking
another
crowd,
as
we
just
saw
this
weekend,
resulting
in
stabbings
and
shootings.
I
I
I've
been
doused
with
pepper
spray
myself
accidentally
at
these.
These
events
and
I've
managed
to
continue
on
with
my
day
without
any
problems.
I've.
You
know
unfortunate
firsthand
experience,
but
it's
uncomfortable.
It
certainly
is,
but
you'd
be
amazed
at
how
effectively
that
can
stop
the
actions
of
a
crowd.
Now,
if
there's
ongoing
violence
that
we
seek
to
stop,
and
we
have
to
give
a
five,
you
know
between
the
warnings
and
the
in
the
two
minute
delays.
Roughly
five
minutes
yeah,
we
would
do
other
things,
but
you're
correct.
I
It
would
expose
officers
to
would
expose
officers
to
danger.
We'd
have
to
go
in
there
with
our
hands
and
batons.
Essentially,
when
people
are
in
close
proximity
with
unknown
weapons
in
a
crowd,
you
know
and
I'd
point
out.
We've
only
had
one
horrible
experience,
but
we
had
some
some
other
minor
ones
where
the
crown
was
on
with
a
vast
array
of
improvised
weapons,
some
that
took
significant
planning,
if
you
have
hundreds
of
frozen
water
bottles
you're
coming
to
an
event
with
the
intent
of
harming
other
people.
I
That's
that's
not
something
that
you
decided
to
do
last
minute
when
you
happen
to
have
hundreds
of
frozen
water
bottles,
commercial
grade,
fireworks
that
that
are
used
to
attack
police
officers.
But
my
concern
is
that
they'd
also
be
used
to
attack.
Others
in
the
crowd
and
we'd
have
to
use
less
efficient,
less
effective
means
to
address
that
which
we
would
do,
but
it
would.
It
would
cause
us
a
significant
delay
in
in
trying
to
turn
the
tide
of
of
violence
which,
which
would
be
you
know,
potentially
catastrophic,
but
certainly
unfortunate.
L
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
deputy
superintendent,
and
if
I
have
the
opportunity
to
ask
one
final
question:
council
edwards,
maybe
to
the
deputy
okay
to
the
deputy
superintendent,
again
deputy
as
we
go
forward,
are
these
subjects
of
these
issues
that
will
will
be
taught
at
the
police
academy,
and
will
we
change
the
police
academy
around
whether
this
is
passed
or
not,
but
just
knowing
knowing
how
to
respond
more
effectively
safely
during
these
difficult
times,.
I
Yes,
council,
I
mean
we're
always
teaching
new
recruits
at
the
academy
offices
and
in
service.
You
know
that
the
most
current
ways
that
the
best
the
best
way
to
handle
crowds,
but
I
would
just
to
to
be
clear
about
how
these
are
used.
Each
officer
has
a
small
can
of
pepper
spray.
All
of
these
other
devices
are
used
by
people
who
have
much
more
extensive
training,
and
you
know
in
the
impact
rounds
and
the
the
the
wider
dispersal
methods
for
pepper
spray
and
cs
gas.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
just
allowing
me
to
get
to
the
list.
I
do
see
that
councilmania
did
raise
her
hand.
I
want
to
acknowledge
that,
but
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
finish
with
counselor
baker
with
any
questions
he
had
before
I
go
back
into
the
second
round
or
we
go
into
kind
of
a
back
and
forth
councillor
baker.
M
M
There
is
somewhat
of
con
controlled
environment,
whether
it's
inside
or
even
in
a
yard.
You
know,
you
know
what
you're
dealing
with
you
know
the
people
are
there.
I
I'm
not
really
following
that.
That
argument
there
as
to
as
to
how
we
could
how
those
those
two
comparables,
that's
just
a
statement.
I'd
like
to
ask
what
is
the
difference
between
tear
gas
and
regular
pepper
spray.
I
There
is
a
difference,
so
pepper
spray
is,
is
basically
a
plant-based
compound
and
it's
it's
an
irritant
and
it's
it's
it's
the
type
of
stuff
that
officers
carry
on
the
belt
and
no
one
really
carries
mace,
which
is
a
you
know,
a
different
thing.
This
pepper
spray
is
kind
of
the
standard.
Essentially
it
washes
off
and
I've
not
experienced
anyone
and
I've
been
with
hundreds
of
people
and
they're
different
training
events
who've
been
exposed
to
it.
I
don't
know
anyone.
I
That's
had
a
negative
reaction,
I'm
sure
you
can
find
someone
somewhere
that
that
had
a
negative
reaction
to
it.
But
it's
it's
from
what
I've
seen
universally
well
tolerated.
Ces
is
different.
It's
it's
a
chemical
compound.
It
can
be
a
little
bit
more
of
an
irritant
and
I've.
I've
seen
some
people
assert
that
that's
more
dangerous,
but
then
the
notable
issue
with
us
is
we
use
it
in
a
crowd,
control
situation
and
it's
gonna
be
used
outdoors.
I
I
You
are
like
any
anything,
that's
dispersing
the
less
potent
it
is
so
so,
basically,
the
the
ces,
the
tear
gas
is,
you
know,
that's
a
generic
kind
of
term
is
the
chemical
and,
and
it
is
fairly
potent
and
the
the
pepper
spray
is
essentially
the
spray
that
can
be
taken
off
an
officer's
belt
and
sprayed,
and
you
know,
may
be
effective
for
a
couple
of
people
for
15
or
20
feet,
and
there
are
various
methods
for
dispersing
the
pepper
spray
as
well.
That
can
be
dispersed
in
a
canister
as
well.
I
I
The
first
time
that
since
I've
been
involved
in
this
power
policing,
the
first
time
was
on
may
31st.
I
know
that
there
was
a
device
used
in
2004
and
the
the
tragic
victoria
snellgrove
incident.
That
was,
that
was
a
completely
different
weapon
system
that
that
we
haven't
used
since
and
and
wouldn't
use
that
system
again
and
wouldn't
use
any
system.
In
that
way
again,
we
we
did
extensive
testing
on
this
sponge
round,
which
is
much
different.
I
It
is
an
aimed
very
accurate
device
that
that
spreads
out-
and
you
know
it's
a
softer
foam
rubber-
that
I
don't
mean
to.
I
mean
to
diminish
the
fact
that
it
does
hurt
if
you
get
hit
with
it,
it's
going
to
hurt,
but
it's
it's
considered
a
lot
safer
than
most
other
options,
and
it
is
so.
We've
used
that
once
and
the
only
time
I
recall
using
ces
in
a
crowd
control
environment
is
on
may
31st
going
into
june
1st.
I
M
Thank
you
in
in
in
another
something
I
want
to
throw
out
there.
Maybe
madame
cheer
you
you
can
answer
this.
I
know
we
bounced
around
a
little
bit.
How
does
we
pass
this
as
an
ordinance
state
state
guidance
comes
down,
state
law
comes
down,
does
and
that
so
that
just
supersedes
this
all
together
is
my
thinking
right.
There.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
for
the
question.
My
understanding
is
that
state
law
sets
the
real
floor,
and
so
in
as
much
as
state
law
or
you
know,
comes
down
on
any
topic
that
we're
dealing
with
at
the
city
level,
provided
that
we
are
meeting
their
standards
and
if
we
are
above
them
we
should
be
fine.
A
The
issue
is,
if
we
are
below
them
or
don't
have
a
standard
such
because,
as
I've
learned
from
other
officers,
I've
learned
from
people
around
our
cities,
for
example,
the
way
we
treat
guns
the
way
we
treat
other
aspects
than
training
even
is
above
other
cities
and
towns
in
the
city
of
boston.
I'm
sorry.
A
Finishing
in
the
state
of
massachusetts,
and
so
we
actually
ride
above
many
in
many
cases,
counselor
baker,
but
we
cannot
go
below
the
floor.
That's
usually
what
the
state
federal
so
on
and
so
forth
sets.
So
we
will
see
what
the
floors
are.
If,
if
this
doesn't
meet
the
state
standards,
then
the
state
would
oversee
or
would
super
supersede?
Excuse
me.
M
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
I
just
want
to
echo
some
of
the
things
that
that
council
flaherty
had
to
say
about
you
know,
and
I'm
sure
people
on
this
call
are
sick
of
hearing
this,
about
about
the
boston
police
that
that
you
know
they.
They
they're
well
trained
a
lot
of
them
very
much
part
of
our
communities.
I
don't
think
that
they
want
to
cause
cause
harm
and
cause
damage,
not
not
that
that
doesn't
take
out.
M
You
know
the
bad
police
officers
that
are
in
there,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
be
in
a
rush
to
follow
minneapolis
to
follow
portland,
to
follow
seattle
places
like
that,
and
I
say
that
not
just
about
this
issue
in
a
lot
of
issues
in
boston,
we're
the
leader
there's
a
reason
why
we
are
still
doing
okay.
Now
I
mean
we're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
these
cities
next
year
when
this
economy
hits
they're
not
going
to
be
doing
as
well
as
the
way
we
are.
I
think
we
should.
M
A
Thank
you
very
much
councillor
baker,
so
I
have
one
question
hand
raised
and
about
you
know
within
my
kind
of
internal
working
timeline.
It's
it's
about
20,
more
minutes
in
the
in
the
hearing,
though
we
are,
we
can
go
over
that
not
you
know,
but
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
people
understand
where
we
are
and
the
issues
that
we
discussed
so
that
we
we
don't
have
too
much
repetition,
I'm
going
to
kind
of
break
down.
A
What
I
heard
is
that
the
cloud
of
things
out
there
pending
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over.
Oh,
I
see
the
hand
has
been
lowered
and
we
can
go
back
through
the
round,
starting
with
the
counselors
a
couple
of
things,
one.
There
is
still
no
implementation
timeline
and
I've
not
heard
what
timeline
would
make
sense.
Thank
you.
Councilman.
I
see
you,
I
do
not.
I'm
just
gonna
go
summarize
the
big
issues
out
there.
Still.
Okay,
I
do
not
see
if
there
was
a.
A
If
there's
some
form
of
restriction
were
to
pass,
it
would
be
helpful
to
hear
from
the
boston
police
department.
Do
you
need
three
months,
four
months,
six
months
for
this
to
be
fully
fleshed
out?
I
do.
I
highly
would
recommend
the
makers
to
put
one
in
there.
I
do
firmly
believe
it
shouldn't
just
be
an
overnight
thing,
but
that's
my
suggestion.
A
I
do
think
that
the
two
minutes,
the
warning
system,
is,
it's
still
a
concern
to
me,
and
so
I
I've
heard
both
sides
and
I
still
think
it's
a
concern
to
some
other
people
if
to
make
make
some
of
your
colleagues
more
comfortable.
You
were
to
reduce
that
time
or
to
support
the
time.
I
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
I'll
say
outright.
I
do
think
the
prison
analogy
is
is
helpful
to
a
very
limited
point,
but
it
is
a
confined
area.
A
The
back
push
back
of
the
of
the
tear
gas
on
the
officers
themselves
for
safety
issues,
there's
a
lot
of
different
things
and
there's
also
certain
commitments
that
we,
because
we
have
chosen
to
imprison
people.
We
have
certain
commitments
to
their
health
and
safety
in
the
confines
of
the
buildings
that
we
pay.
For
that
we
we
have
in
terms
of
not
not
cruel,
unusual
punishment.
Things
like
that,
so
I
I
just
wanna.
The
context
is
different
from
me.
A
It
is
helpful
to
a
certain
extent,
but
is
it
is
not
definitive
for
for
me,
I
think
the
all
is
very
important.
The
all
part
that
counselor
mejia
brought
up
how
this
warning
system
would
be
implemented
and
mind
you
counselor
mejia
has
pending
and
we
will
likely
pass
some
version
from
version.
Excuse
me
of
language
activist
access
ordinance
that
was
looking
at
literally
providing
at
least
written
documents
and
more
than
four
or
five
languages.
A
How
are
how
do
people
who
are
hard
of
hearing
and
deaf
get
access
to
this
warning
system
if
it
is
about
their
safety
and
knowledge?
That
is
very
important
for
that.
That's
out
there,
there's
also
the
of
course,
the
state
and
the
city
dynamics.
With
those
conversations
I
I
hope
I
had
helped
in
provided
guidelines
on
that,
but
I
think
it's
important
council
flaherty
brought
up
the
mountain
mounted
unit.
I
don't
know
that.
That's
really
something
we
could
be
implementing
anyway
in
this
one.
A
It
would
probably
have
to
be
something
we
deal
with
in
the
budget
cycle
coming
up.
I
am
oh
there
there's,
also
the
intercity
coordination
and
how
that
works
right
now,
and
I
think
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
attorney
fleur
or
if
it
was
rassan
who
brought
up
the
fact
that
we
already
have
inter-city
differences
and
when
you
go
into
different
jurisdictions.
A
A
Sorry,
just
looking
at
each
one
of
the
counselors
remembering
their
comments.
Oh
yes
and
then
there's
the
other.
The
interpret
interpretation
of
the
of
this
ordinance-
and
I
think
I
want
to
make
very
clear
my
understanding
of
the
language
and
my
understanding
of
both
sides
is
that
there's
a
there's,
a
confusion
about
I'll,
just
use
myself
I'll
use
my
name.
I
have
started
a
protest
or
whatever
I'm
in
a
protest.
I
should
say,
for
I
don't
know,
lack
of
a
lack
of
christmas
lights.
A
A
A
An
officer
seeing
me
act,
foolish
and
in
a
criminal
way,
can
do
what
he
what
his
training
or
her
training
allows
for
them
to
do,
which
could
include
those
those
without
a
warning,
because
we're
not
talking
about
a
protest
anymore.
We're
simply
talking
about
edwards,
has
gone
off
and
done
is
doing
her
thing.
A
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
unders
that
that
where
that
debate
is
but
on
its
face,
it
has
no
intention-
and
I
think,
if
that's
what
they
need
is
more
definitive
language
to
make
very
clear
at
someone
who
is
not
part
of
the
protest,
this
does
not
apply
to
them.
I
think
I
think
that
makers
should
also
consider
that
kind
of
language
as
well.
So
I
hope
I
summarize
the
big
buckets
out
there
for
further
discussion
counsel
me
here.
You
raised
your
hand
and
then
I'm
gonna
go
back
through.
A
E
E
So
I'm
just
a
little
bit
unclear
about
the
why
we
can't
plan
for
for
certain
things,
which
is
what
I
understood
that
we
did.
So
it's
just
more
of
a
rant
less
of
a
question,
but
I'm
just
curious
about
the
process,
but
I,
if
anything
I
want
to
just
say
just
to
really
push
on
the
idea
of
just
creating
some
signage
whenever
there's
a
protest
to
include
for
folks
who
can't
either
read
or
write
or
just
have
a
hard
time
with
hearing.
So
that's
what
I
would
advocate
for.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Councilor
michia,
as
pounds
are
being
raised,
I'll
just
call
so
jeff.
Before
I
get
to
you,
I
want
to
make
sure
for
to
go
back
to
the
lead
sponsors
and
then
I'll.
I
will
have
jeff
respond
to
what
counselor
any
any
questions
or
concerns
and
other
to
the
other
counselors
again,
if
you
would
raise
your
hand,
so
I
know
to
call
and
and
engage
this
conversation
counselor
arrow.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
would
say
that
that
sounds
to
me
at
least
as
a
participant
in
this
hearing.
Like
a
good
summary
of
what's
been
said,
a
very
accurate
summary,
I
would
say
a
couple
things
on
the
lead-in
as
to
whether
or
not
it
takes
effect,
literally
upon
passage
or
within
two
months
or
three
months
or
six
months.
B
That
was
something
that
we
were
hoping
bpd
would
be
helpful
in
letting
us
know
just
how
long
it
would
take
for
them
to
implement
this
in
a
responsible,
safe
manner
with
their
own
team
with
their
own
people.
And
you
know
I
don't
think
we've
heard
a
time
frame
for
that
from
them.
But
I
would
that's
something
we
would
certainly
be
open
to
hearing
from
them
to
implement,
and
so
I
I
appreciate
that.
B
B
Thank
you
so
much.
I
don't
know
why
that
I
blanked
on
de-escalation,
but
in
terms
of
de-escalation,
I
think,
would
be
hard
to
de-escalate
people
who
speak
different
languages
if
you're
speaking
to
them
in
a
different
language,
and
so
I'm
sure
bpd
has
some
method
or
some
policy
or
some
way
of
doing
this,
or
at
least
I
would
hope
so,
and
so
the
hope
was
that
there
would
be
some
collaboration
there
with
what
they're
already
doing
and
how
they're
already
doing
it
to
make
that
best
work,
and
so
on.
B
Those
two
I
think,
there's
something
to
be
done
there.
I
would
again
state
that
this
has
been
since
august
that
we've
been
having
this
out
here,
willing
to
have
bpd
sort
of
climb
in
and
say.
This
is
how
much
time
this
is
what
we
think
here.
This
is
what
we
think
there
and
now
that
we're
in
december.
B
These
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
I
think
make
a
two
minute
warning
reasonable,
and
so
you
know
on
that
front.
I
don't
think
that
there's
at
least
for
me,
there's
not
much
give
on
that,
because
I
just
think
that
that
gives
people
enough
time
to
leave.
I
think
on
the
lead-in
I
think,
on
the
way
in
which
we
deal
with
the
warning
itself.
B
A
So,
just
to
summarize,
I
hear
the
two-minute
warning
seems
to
be
the
tough
or
the
toughest
one
for
you.
Counselor
really
you're,
like
unlikely
change
the
lead-in
in
terms
of
the
implementation.
There
is
flexibility
and
would
love
some
feedback
on
that
and
then
the
all
and
implementation
for
the
the
how
the
warning
is
is
done.
B
Yeah,
that
is
accurate.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
think.
If
we
were,
you
know,
I
think
the
compromise
of
not
making
this
a
complete
ban
was
creating
a
warning
system
that
actually
allows
for
people
to
leave
an
area.
If,
if
there
is
no
warning
system
that
allows
people
to
leave
the
area,
then
it
may
as
well
be
a
ban
at
that
point
because
you're
not
offering
protection
to
residents
and
constituents.
A
C
C
But
that
sounds
like
it's
not
necessarily
the
case.
What
I
mean
by
that
is
that
they
don't
necessarily
think
this.
This
is
a
good
idea
to
even
have
some
reasonable
guidelines
in
place
with
respect
to
these
these
tools,
and
so
I
think
you
know
it's
incumbent
upon
us
obviously
to
lead
and
to
to
push
for
these
guidelines.
C
I
think
it
doesn't.
You
know
even
passage
of
this
does
not,
of
course,
prohibit
us
from
having
subsequent
conversations
with
the
department
if
it's
in
place
as
to
you
know,
implementation
date,
how
much
time
they
would
need
what
some
of
their
current
practices
are
with
respect
to
making
sure
that
folks
in
a
crowd
are,
are
addressed
in
and
all
notified.
I
think
that's
a
larger
conversation
around
our
notification
process
period
within
the
department
and
but
I
don't
think
any
of
it
should
preclude
us
moving
forward
on
this
legislation.
L
L
You
know
having
translators,
I'm
j
translators
during
during
a
protest.
I'm
just
wondering
what
impact
that
would
have
on
the
timing.
You
know
making
sure
we
have
certified
translators
at
the
scene.
I
know
I
know
the
boston
police
in
the
language
access.
We,
we
do
have
a
few
boston
police
officers.
That
would
speak,
say
cantonese
if
if
it
was
in
downtown,
so
I
think
that
would
have
to
be
discussed.
L
What
what
role
would
the
police
play
during
that
time?
What
what
is
the
time
frame?
How
do
we
respond
to
to
those
types
of
life-and-death
situations,
because
the
police
are
there
to
protect
the
peaceful
protesters
and
those
that
are
not
peacefully
protesting,
so
you
know
I.
I
have
concerns
that
there
are
people
that
do
like
to
go
to
these
protests,
not
for
the
right
reasons
and
and
to
add
an
element
of
violence.
But
what
what
role
will
the
police
department
play
in
that
type
of.
I
I
mean
our
role
would
be
diminished
in
terms
of
the
range
of
options
that
we
have.
We
would
still,
as
we
always
do,
look
out
for
the
safety
of
of
the
people
that
are
present
and
protesting
and
try
to
try
to
keep
the
level
of
conflict
as
low
as
possible,
recognizing
that
some
people
are
intent
on
conflict
as
we've
seen
in
the
past.
I
Certainly,
with
this
new
expected
police
reform
legislation
every
particularly
when
you're,
actually
violating
an
ordinance
or
allegedly
violating
ordinance,
everything
you
do
is
putting
your
career
and
your
livelihood
on
the
line.
So
it's
not
just
the
physical
risk
that
the
officers
would
have
to
absorb,
but
the
additional
liability
and
career
risks
that
we'd
have
to
absorb
still.
So
we
would
be
there
for
the
citizens
of
boston,
but
it
would
be
much
more
challenging.
L
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
deputy
superintendent.
I
I
appreciate
that
I
I
know
you
would
be
there
for
the
residents
of
boston
because
I
think
I
think
the
police,
boston,
police
are
highly
trained
and
educated
and,
as
someone
mentioned,
they're
also
our
neighbors
and
sports
coaches
and
literally
coaches
and
active
in
the
community.
L
J
J
I've
been
monitoring
demonstrations
personally,
observing
them,
as
has
the
national
lawyers
guild
for
the
last
30
years,
and
the
police
are
always
very
active
in
arresting
immediately
people
who
are
engaged
in
acts
of
violence.
They
don't
have
to
use
these
weapons,
they
go
in
and
arrest
the
individuals
and
they
are
always
on
the
alert
for
people
who
are
committing
acts
of
violence
or
property
destruction,
and
they
can
go
in
and
target
those
individuals.
As
you
said,
councillor
flynn,
there
are
for
the
vast
majority
of
protesters
and
demonstrators.
They
are
peaceful.
J
There
may
be
a
few
troublemakers
or
people
who
come
with
the
idea
of
committing
violence
or
property
destruction
and
the
police
are
on
the
lookout
for
them.
They've
done
intelligence
work
beforehand.
They
know
who
troublemakers
are
often,
they
can
often
identify
them,
and
I've
seen
them
over
and
over
again
during
a
peaceful
demonstration,
go
in
and
arrest
individuals.
J
Superintendent
mcgultrick
talked
about
the
difference
between
tear
gas,
cs
gas
and
and
pepper
spray,
and
you
should
have
the
letter
from
the
physicians
from
huma
for
human
rights
and
a
number
of
other
organizations
that
were
sent
to
the
boston
city
council,
which
details
in
fact
the
very
serious
injuries
that
pepper
spray,
along
with
cs
gas,
can
cause
to
people.
It's
well
documented
in
the
medical
literature
that,
in
particular,
with
pepper
spray.
J
J
It
certainly
disperses
and
can
cause
very
serious
injuries
and
permanent
injuries
to
people
who
are
not
part
of
committing
any
kind
of
unlawful
act
or
violence
or
property
destruction,
and
the
third
thing
I
want
to
mention
was
the
concerns
that
councillor
mahir
raised
and
councillor
flynn
raised
about
language
and
access
to
it.
We
already
have
in
massachusetts
a
riot
statute.
It's
superintendent
mcgultrick
mentioned
it.
J
J
The
police
already
have
procedures
for
announcing
that
to
the
crowd
and
I've
done
a
number
of
these
cases.
The
defended
people
in
in
some
of
these
cases
where
they've
been
arrested
and
I've
done
a
great
deal
of
research
in
this
area.
As
far
as
I
can
see,
there
has
never
been
a
lawsuit
brought
against
any
police
officer
in
the
state
of
massachusetts
because
it
was
not
announced
in
the
proper
language
or
not
given
in
sign
language.
J
J
So
I
I
don't
think
the
language
act,
certainly
the
more
access
people
have
and
the
more
knowledge
they
have
about
this,
the
better
it
is,
but
I
don't
see
that
as
being
any
impediment
to
giving
these
warnings
they're
in
place
already
with
this
hundred-year-old
statute
about
riots
and
ordering
people
to
disperse
from
that.
So
thank.
L
I
represent
the
downtown
area
in
the
chinatown
area
where,
where
that
where
the
demonstrations
were-
and
I
had
a
lot
of
businesses
in
my
district
that
were
destroyed
during
a
lot
of
these
demonstrations
and
a
lot
of
them
were
immigrant-owned
businesses,
which
was
very-
which
was
very
hurtful,
but
I
I
still
don't
think
I
have
a
good
answer
on
when
people
bring
such
as
such
as
what
happened
at
the
boston
coleman.
When
people
bring
you
know,
weapons
they
bring
knives
or
they
bring
guns
or
or
water,
water
bottles
filled
with
ice.
L
C
Yes
mark
madam
chair,
I
actually
have
to
jump.
I
have
a
hard.
I
had
a
hard
stop
at
12
for
another
meeting
that
I
unfortunately
cannot
reschedule.
Council
roy,
I
know,
is
going
to
stay
on.
I
will
just
say,
and
thank
you
so
much
to
the
panelists
for
being
here
and
and
for
giving
us
more
of
your
time.
I
know
how
busy
you
guys
are.
So.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
work.
I
would
just
say
a
couple
of
things.
C
Obviously,
looking
to
to
get
this
passed,
I
do
think
we
have
to
remember
why
we're
doing
this
right,
we
have
heard
from
thousands
of
residents
via
email
text,
calls
that
they
want
to
see
policing,
reform
on
a
whole
host
of
fronts,
including
how
we
show
up
with
respect
to
our
protest
and
real
concrete
stories,
painful
stories
of
folks
where
these
tools
were
used
on
them.
Councilor
bach
even
spoke
to
that
that
were
really
painful
to
hear,
and
so
council
roya
and
I
obviously
came
together
to
find
a
reasonable
response.
C
Even
though
there
was
an
appetite
for
by
many
for
a
total
ban
to
say,
we
want
to
work
with
our
police
department,
given
the
nature
of
their
job,
to
have
a
reasonable
response,
and
we,
of
course
put
this
forward
in
august,
have
been
waiting
for
greater
collaboration
with
the
department
on
some
of
these
provisions.
That
being
said,
I
still
think
it
is
solid.
I
think
there
there
are
different
pieces.
C
We
could
work
out
if
they
decide
not
to
show
up
now,
maybe
later
on
and
then
on
two
other
pieces
on
this,
the
there
was
an
argument
made
around
suing.
Obviously,
people
can
sue
our
police
department
at
any
time
for
anything
that
we
do.
This
doesn't
create
an
opportunity
for
that
that
if
some
of
these
tools
were
used
and
folks
not
inappropriately
or
they
were
harmed,
there's
avenues
they
can
take.
Our
goal
is
to
respond
to
our
constituents
to
get
something
done.
That
is
reasonable.
This
is
definitely
it
and
remember.
C
We
can
always
come
back
once
it's
in
practice
to
tweak
to
edit
we've
done
that
with
several
ordinances
in
the
past
on
a
whole
host
of
issues
where
we
said
you
know
what
this
is
working
out
differently,
let's
tweak,
let's
edit,
let's
reform
happy
to
do
that,
but
I
think
we've
had
a
whole
host
of
conversations
and
now
is
the
time
to
get
it
done
to
respond
to
those
concerns
that
we
heard.
So.
Thank
you
to
everyone.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
of
course,
to
council
royal
for
the
partnership.
A
A
If
anyone
has
any
thoughts
about
the
two-minute
warning,
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
about
the
lead
in
time,
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
about
the
implementation
of
the
all.
Thank
you
counselor
attorney,
sir,
for
the
liability
implications
of
that.
If
there
were
concerns
in
your
understanding
of
what
has
and
hasn't
happened
in
terms
of
lawsuits
and
yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
we
got
some
feedback
on
that
from
any
of
my
other
colleagues
and
the
bbd
in
terms
of
their
thought.
A
It's
important
because
this
could
very
well
be
something
that
comes
before
us
publicly
this
wednesday
to
my
colleagues,
so
it
would
be
great
if
there's
any
suggestions.
I
personally
I
I
know
this
seems
like
a
long
time,
but
I
I
do
think
a
three-month
implementation
lead
window
would
would
be
something
that
I'm
I'm
interested
in.
I
am
I
I
don't
know
if
the
sponsors
are
interested
in
that.
A
This
with,
while
I've
been
here
the,
as
you
recall,
councilor
flynn,
we
made
the
comeback
specifically
about
short-term
rentals
as
a
controversy,
and
we
had
to
have
that
this
additional
discussion
we've
done
this
and
it
before
here
with
the
boston
jobs
policy.
We
have
that
come
back
and
discuss,
and
that
was
also
discussed
recently
when
discussing
the
oppat.
So
I
want
to
be
clear.
A
A
E
Yes,
so
I
wanted
to
recommend
perhaps
instead
of
two
minutes,
can
we
do
three
minutes
that
I
mean
a
little
bit
more
time,
might
give
us
an
opportunity
to
address
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
who
was
able
to
understand
what
what
is
happening
here
and
what
is
about
to
go
down.
So
maybe
extending
the
the
warning
time
and
then
I'm
also
curious
in
terms
of
the
rollout
with
the
three-month
situation.
E
Can
we
add,
in
terms
of
will
there
be
training
and
information
sharing
with
the
officers
in
terms
of
these
new
protocols?
What
provisions
are
we
putting
in
place
to
ensure
that
people
understand
what
this
is
going
to
look
like
moving
forward
and
then
council
editors?
I
really
like
your
whole
idea
of
you
know
testing
things
out
to
see
how
it
fits
and
then
working
out
the
tweaks.
E
I
think
that
that
seems
pretty
reasonable,
and
just
one
last
thing
that
I
want
to
like
say
is
that
you
know
we
talk
about
the
bpd
having
systems
in
place
to
communicate
with
communities
that
speak
languages
other
than
english.
But
you
know,
I
think,
that
what
we
have
seen,
and
especially
in
certain
in
recent
incidences
I'll
point
to
the
one
in
east
boston
that
happened
in
march,
that
police
officer
that
was
stationed
in
east
boston
didn't
speak
spanish
and
there
was
a
lack
of
communication
there.
E
So
whatever
that
looks
like,
I
just
think
it
needs
to
be
really
explicit
and
that
there's
a
level
of
accountability
that
happens,
and
I
think
one
of
the
other
sessions
I
talked
about
having
a
dashboard
I
like
to
know
how
often
these
things
get
dispersed
and
what
the
outcomes
have
been
of
that
in
terms
of
people
getting
hurt.
If
there's
a
way
for
us
to
keep
track
of
those
things,
that
would
be
incredibly
helpful
as
well.
A
B
Arroyo
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
things.
I
think
the
three-month
lead-in
is
wholly
appropriate
and
I
I
think
that's
something
that,
in
speaking
with
councillor
campbell,
I
think
that's
something
that
can
be
added
as
far
as
the
two
minutes,
I
think
what
councilmember
has
illustrated
is
that
you
know
there's
a
wide
range
of
what
people
think
is
an
appropriate
amount
of
time.
You
know
for
some
folks
who
have
been
advocating
for
this
bill.
B
They
didn't
want
warnings;
they
just
didn't
want
this
to
be
used
at
all.
They
didn't
think
that
it
should
happen,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
that.
That's
a
part
of
the
conversation
is
that
there's
a
there's,
a
large
part
of
the
city
that
would
have
preferred
that
we
not
allow
for
the
usage
of
this
at
all.
When
we
came
to
the
two
minutes,
the
idea
was
to
give
somebody
who
is
elderly
somebody
who
has
young
children,
somebody
who
may
be
trying
to
leave
the
actual
ability
to
leave.
B
I
think
there's
folks,
outside
of
the
construct
of
this
room,
this
zoom
chat,
rather,
who
would
see
two
minutes
as
either
too
long
or
too
short,
and
so,
when
we
came
up
to
two
minutes,
we
thought
that
was
a
solid
compromise.
On
top
of
the
fact
that
we're
already
compromising
with
the
fact
that
we're
not
removing
these
these
weapons
is
ability
to
be
used.
But
I
think
that
councilman,
here
just
kind
of
illustrated
the
difficulties
in
trying
to
find
a
specific.
B
You
know
number
that
works
well
and
you
know
without
bpd,
having
ever
really
offered
a
time
frame
in
a
written
amendment
form.
You
know,
two
minutes
is
kind
of
what
we
have
and
I
think
that
it's
a
good
middle
ground
from
folks
who
believe
it
shouldn't
exist
at
all,
so
folks
who
think
it
should
be
four
minutes
or
five
minutes
or
three
minutes
or
you
know,
we've
had
advocates
who've
asked
for
why
just
two
sets
of
warnings.
B
Why
not
four
sets
of
warnings
now
why
five
sets
of
warnings,
and
so
I
would
just
say
that
it's
both
sides
there's
a
conversation
about
it
being
too
long,
but
there's
also
an
extended
amount
of
pressure
to
make
that
time
longer,
and
so
I
I
that's
why
we
came
in
two
minutes.
We
think
it's
somewhere
in
the
middle,
but
I
think
the
three-minute
lead-in
is
wholly
appropriate
and
something
that
we
can
get
in
there.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Counselor
aurora
and
just
just
I
actually
was
reminded
if
the
state,
where
there
would
be
a
conflict
between
this
and
the
state
house
and
where
it
would
require
us
to
change,
and
that
would
be
if
the
state
house,
for
example,
had
passed
the
I
think
there's
a
bill
proposed
during
the
budget
debate
about
banning
tear
gas
altogether
and
there
was
a
back
and
forth.
If
you
recall,
I
think
it
was.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
miranda,
but
somebody
had
proposed
banning
tear
gas
now.
A
If
the
state
house
had
banned
that-
and
we
were
only
restricting
here
at
city
level,
then
we
would
have
to
come
under
the
state
house
and
the
ban
would
have
would
reach
down
to
us.
But
that's
not
what
what
happened
is
my
understanding,
so
this
would
be
for
those
who
had
asked
about
that
counselor
flynn,
counselor
savvy
george,
has
seen
you
I
I
went
through
a
second
round.
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
had
anything
after.
H
L
Thank
you,
council
edwards.
I
guess
my
my
final.
One
of
my
final
points
is:
if
this
was
to
take
place,
will
there
be
a
financial
cost
to
it
for
the
city
to
implement
these
proposed
changes,
and
if
that
is
the
case,
are
we
going
to
advocate
for
that
in
in
the
city
budget
or
will
the
will
the
boston
police
make
these
changes
with
the
ongoing
budget
that
they
have?
L
A
I
was
absolutely
on
me
with
counselor
flynn.
Thank
you.
I
I
think
that's
why
I'm
I'm
really
interested
in
the
lead
in
time.
Counselor
flynn
is
that's
why
I
didn't
want
to
immediately
start,
and
I
do
believe
that
there's
a
certain
balance
that
the
co-sponsors
have
tried
to
strike
with
folks,
not
banning
these
things,
but
saying
there
could
be
some
restrictions
we
could
all
agree
to.
A
I
genuinely
have
heard
that
several
times
wanting
to
have
a
collaborative
conversation
about
restrictions
we
all
could
agree
to
if
if
we
also
had
a
lead
in
time,
I
think
also
that
allows
for
us
to
continue
to
have
the
conversation,
research
and
concerns
we
are
not.
This
isn't
going
to
be
written
in
stone.
A
We
also
could
be
one
day
discussing
adjustments
that
we
may
need
to
have
we've
we've
adjusted
other
policies
is
all
I'm
saying,
so
I
just
wanted
people
to
know
that
as
well
for
any
of
my
other
any
of
my
other
any
other
colleagues
who
have
any
other
questions,
remarks,
suggestions
for
this
particular
docket.
Please
please
raise
your
blue
hand
and
to
the
advocates
and
to
the
boston
police
department.
A
J
I
I
just
want
to
echo
what
councillor
arroyo
and
councillor
campbell
have
said,
which
is
it's
time
for
us
to
seriously
look
at
police
reform
legislation.
This
is
one
small
step
toward
doing
it.
Restricting
the
use
of
these
very
significantly
dangerous
weapons,
and
it
would
be
great
to
see
the
city
of
boston
be
a
leader
in
that.
That's
all.
Thank
you.
I
I
If
there
are
crowds
that
engage
in
property
damage
and
the
people
that
are
impacted
when
crowds
engage
in
violence,
that
happens
extremely
rarely,
and
it's
handled
very
well
by
the
boston
police
department.
We
have
guidelines
and
protocols
in
place,
and-
and
you
know
we
we
take
on
this
work
at
great
risk.
Those
we
still
have
offices
that
are
out
injured,
with
the
with
their
lives,
still
impacted
by
the
injuries
they
received
at
some
of
these
rockets.
I
I
You
know,
as
I
said,
if
it
becomes,
if
it
becomes
the
law
of
the
land,
certainly
we'll
abide
by
it,
we'll
train
to
it
and
we'll
we'll
make
it
work
as
best
we
can,
but
our
ability
will
be
diminished
and
the
additional
risk
that
we
ask
our
offices
to
take
on
at
these
events
will
increase
for
them
and,
unfortunately,
probably
increase
increase
for
people
who
just
want
to
go
there
and
and
have
their
message
heard.
You
know
it's
not
just
the
police
that
are
at
risk.
I
It's
it's
everyone,
so
I
mean
those
are
the
reasons
why
we
see
the
problems
with
this
ordinance
as
written,
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
there's
there's
probably
going
to
be
a
state
solution
that
would
apply
more
broadly
and
I
think,
would
be
more
than
effective
at
adding
a
level
of
scrutiny
and
oversight
on
on
these
issues.
But
but
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
participate.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity.